On 28 January 2013 18:16, Graziano Servizi <Graziano.Servizi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> However specifying "noexcept" turns out to be necessary at least for the >> default constructor, otherwise no "move" operation is performed (on my >> system). Saying this I refer to the code I sent you in my early message. >> May be this is due to the instantiation of "v" in the first line of main? >> Did you ever meet such a situation before? > > No, I don't see how it's possible. > The code in your first message has no default constructor, so I don't > understand how making a non-existent constructor noexcept can change > anything! > > > I'm sorry; I made a mistake: it was the DESTRUCTOR (which IS provided) that > needed to be noexcept-ed. On my system, if I didn't so, there are > 3 moves and 3 copies (as you said), while with a noexcept DESTRUCTOR no copy > occurs: only 6 moves. Ah yes, with GCC 4.7 that is necessary. I was testing with GCC trunk which has implicit noexcept on destructors (as required by C++11)
